Albert Russell Clay, Jr. v. Edward W. Murray, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections

Fourth Circuit

Albert Russell Clay, Jr. v. Edward W. Murray, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections

60 F.3d 821, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 24771, 1995 WL 419954

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJuly 13, 1995

Docket95-6492

StatusPublished

This text of 60 F.3d 821 (Albert Russell Clay, Jr. v. Edward W. Murray, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Albert Russell Clay, Jr. v. Edward W. Murray, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, 60 F.3d 821, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 24771, 1995 WL 419954 (4th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

60 F.3d 821
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Albert Russell CLAY, Jr., Petitioner--Appellant,
v.
Edward W. MURRAY, Director of the Virginia Department of
Corrections, Respondent--Appellee.

No. 95-6492.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 22, 1995.
Decided: July 13, 1995.

Albert Russell Clay, Jr., appellant pro se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Richmond, VA, for appellee.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Clay v. Murray, No. CA-92-230-N (E.D.Va. Mar. 2, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

60 F.3d 821
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Albert Russell CLAY, Jr., Petitioner--Appellant,
v.
Edward W. MURRAY, Director of the Virginia Department of
Corrections, Respondent--Appellee.

No. 95-6492.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 22, 1995.
Decided: July 13, 1995.

Albert Russell Clay, Jr., appellant pro se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Richmond, VA, for appellee.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Clay v. Murray, No. CA-92-230-N (E.D.Va. Mar. 2, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 F.3d 821, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 24771, 1995 WL 419954, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albert-russell-clay-jr-v-edward-w-murray-director--ca4-1995.